Thanks Stephen Harper.

Home Depot has like a 300% markup from what the mills around here sell it for... so who's the middle man... (taxes, shipping, tariffs)?

Are the American forest companies really more productive... or do they just earn more profits?

It must be Jimmy's fault. Corporate welfare bums are ripping off the people's stuff and looking for handouts too! Heehee!!

I know there have been a lot of job losses in the area but for those lucky enough to still have jobs, I wonder have wages dropped at all?

Our profits are eaten up by union wages.

Yes Canada is the worst performer- time to run Forestry as a business.

Eagleone:- "Are the American forest companies really more productive... or do they just earn more profits?"

These kind of 'studies' are highly suspect. The 'profit' they are talking about may well have NOT all come from operations, but may include gains made from the sale of plants and timberland, 'restructuring' gains, or even the sale of other ventures in which some of the companies mentioned had ownership of, or investments in.

"Profit" can be increased in accounting by 'streching' depreciation schedules on 'new' plant out over longer periods, just as it can be reduced if a lesser amount of money were actually spent on keeping 'existing' plant in good repair.

"Profit", in the sense this repeort is talking about it, is NOT analogous to "cash", but is simply a bookkeeping figure that's quite meaningless unless considered along with EACH company's full accounts, i.e., their individual Balance Sheets and Statements of Cash Flow.

Dogs:-"Yes Canada is the worst performer- time to run Forestry as a business."

Any country that is a FORCED exporter rather than one that is FREE to export or not, will find that virtually everything of supposed benefit it does 'micro-economically' "to run Forestry as a business", or any other of its exporting enterprises the same way, will be continuously negated 'macro-economically' by the countries that are receiving its goods endeavouring ever harder in trying to find ways to keep them out.

It will be thus so long as we do NOT have an actual trade of relative surpluses of goods internationally, with 'money' being utilized only to facilitate that trade. But rather a FORCED trade of goods FOR 'money' (internatioinal credits, really), instead of alternate foreign goods.

Anything we do to try to correct this situation along the lines we've been going, i.e., plant 'rationalization', concentration of corporate ownership, building 'super-mills', etc., etc. ~ even cutting wages below the levels of our so-called 'competitors' ~ will, in the overall analysis, FAIL. We are simply engaging in a race to the bottom.

We have to correct the OVERALL problem of modern finance first. A country which CANNOT buy ALL its own production with the incomes distributed in the course of its making (not that it wants to, but that it CANNOT), CANNOT buy the 'exchange' of that production through international trade either.

Our 'trade' is NOT a trade of our goods for someone else's goods. It's a trade of our goods for their 'credit'. Credit which "our" banks will use to put us all further in debt, since to them, it represents the 'fuel' for a further expansion of domestic credit to many times the amount of that international credit.

We are 'working' our way straight into 'bankruptcy' the way we're going. And why anyone is so stupid to believe we have to 'work' at something like that is truly beyond me.

Isn't free trade great.
It's only free trade for those living south of the border.

"Thanks Stephen Harper"?

Did he single handedly destroy the housing market in the U.S.?

Before bashing the gov't, unions and everything else, note that the top performing companies abandoned solid wood products ages ago.

HD, What do you mean by "union wages"? Is that something different from non-union wages? Also thanks to 15% tariff maybe that cuts into the Canadian producers bottom line like maybe about 15%.

corporate profits eating away at union wages!

Eagleone- the answer to your question are US companies more efficient- Yes their ROE was 5.5% our neg .1%- our forestry is a complete joke.

Wow, I thought I'd never see the day that I agreed with Yama.
Hee Hee Hee

RUEZ, I was thinking of the softwood deal he signed for political purposes and not based on trade rules that has been penalizing Canadian forest companies with a 15% tariff because of the depressed prices.

Maybe Harper never foresaw the US housing crash when he signed that deal... maybe politics clouded his judgment... maybe corporate insiders where going to use an agreement to raid the companies for millions and thus there political contributions dictated the agreement Harper signed... but the fact remains it is his deal and that deal is killing the Canadian forest industry right now.

Nice try dogs... try and read Socreds post above.

A number I would be interested in would be man hours per 1000 board feet as well as the more common ratio's. As well when a company pays more for transportation, or tariffs, or taxes... then does this come out of the bottom line of the forest company, and if so how do these numbers compare, because contrary to the bankster talk the survivability of these companies isn't found in the actual savings that can be incurred in operations alone, but rather how these other things also effect the viability of the Canadian enterprises. Maybe we also have a systemic problem in how the playing field is being slanted against the Canadian forest industry through rising transportation issues, tariffs from an unjust deal, and who knows what else is out there.... (raw logs for one).....

A lot of US forest companies are hurting badly right now, too. Many have curtailed operations, many others closed permanently, or are under bankruptcy protection trying to reorganize. And there are a lot of mills in the USA that are far from being 'state of the art', and haven't had a lot of money spent on them for 'new' equipment for years.

The question I would ask is just 'who' commissions such 'studies' as this one from Price Waterhouse Coopers? Or do they just have a reams of statisticians, accountants, economnists, etc. that have spare time on their hands and do such things?

The comparisons are really not of much value to anyone for any practical purpose, since the variables involved are considerable and would have to be taken into account, (one would think, anyways, though 'sheeple' obviously inhabit the upper echelons of forest company management, too!) , before committing any money as an investment.

One thing is certain, EVERY Canadian log cut in a US mill is a log that WON'T be cut in a Canadian mill. Those who argue that having unimpeded log exports would open the door again to unimpeded lumber exports are dreaming in technicolour.

That simply will NOT happen, and if we do as I think we'll be stupid enough to do with Campbell and his 'global' cohorts in charge, and remove the remaining restrictions on raw log exports expecting the USA to open their borders to the free flow of our softwood again, we're signing the death warrant of our lumber industry.